642
submitted 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) by z3rOR0ne@lemmy.ml to c/politics@lemmy.world

The late-night talkshow host John Oliver has offered to pay Clarence Thomas $1m annually – as well as give him a $2m tour bus – if the Republican judge resigns from the US supreme court.

Oliver made the proposal on Sunday’s episode of his HBO show Last Week Tonight, saying the supreme court justice had 30 days to accept or it would expire.

The British-born, progressive comedian’s offer came after a steady drumbeat of media investigations in the previous several months established that Thomas failed to disclose that political benefactors bought him lavish vacation travel and real estate for his mother. Thomas also failed to disclose – as required – that he allowed school fees for a family member to be paid off and had been provided a loan to buy a luxury motor coach, all after openly complaining about the need to raise supreme court justices’ salaries.

As a result, Thomas’s impartiality came into question after he sided with the contentious ruling that eliminated the federal abortion rights once provided by the Roe v Wade case.

He also recently listened to arguments over whether Donald Trump can be removed from states’ ballots in the presidential election after the former president’s supporters – whom he told to “fight like hell” – staged the January 6 attack at the US Capitol in Washington DC. Thomas resisted pressure to recuse himself from matters pertaining to the Capitol attack, even though his wife, Ginni Thomas, is a conservative political activist who has endorsed false claims from Trump and his supporters that the 2020 election he lost to Joe Biden was stolen from him – which in turn fueled January 6.

Oliver alluded to all of those circumstances as he extended his lucrative offer to Thomas, saying: “Lot on your plate right now, from stripping away women’s rights to hearing January 6 cases … and you deserve a break, you know, away from the meanness of Washington. So you can be surrounded by the regular folks whose lives you made demonstrably worse for decades.”

The host suggested that Thomas could upgrade his “favorite mode of travel” by signing a contract requiring him to step down from the supreme court in exchange for $1m annually from Oliver along with the tour bus, which is outfitted with a king-sized bed, a fireplace and four televisions.

Oliver joked that Thomas possibly feared that making such a trade might attract negative judgment from one of his top benefactors: the Republican mega-donor Harlan Crow, who was reported to have maintained a private collection of Nazi memorabilia that included a pair of paintings by Adolf Hitler.

But Oliver said: “That’s the beauty of friendship, Clarence. If they’re real friends, they’ll love you no matter what your job is. So I guess this might be the perfect way to find out who your real friends actually are.

“So that’s the offer – $1m a year, Clarence. And a brand new condo on wheels. And all you have to do … is sign the contract and get the fuck off the supreme court,” Oliver remarked. “The clock starts now – 30 days, Clarence. Let’s do this!”

The yearly salary for supreme court justices – whose appointments are for life – is $298,500.

Neither Thomas nor the supreme court immediately commented publicly on Oliver’s offer. Oliver acknowledged he could end up going on “standup tours … for years” to be able to afford paying Thomas’s retirement if the justice accepts the proposal.

The arch-conservative is the longest-serving member of a supreme court dominated 6-3 by rightwingers. Thomas has been there since his 1991 confirmation, which was marked by testimony from Anita Hill, who accused him of sexual harassment while he supervised her in two separate jobs, at the US Department of Education and at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Wrench@lemmy.world 21 points 9 months ago

Or we could legislate checks and balances, so that we can hold powerful people accountable for corruption.

[-] ArbiterXero@lemmy.world 12 points 9 months ago

As we have recently discovered with Donald Trump, the checks and balances are only as good as the people willing to enforce them.

A government is made of regular people, though notably ungoverned

[-] metaStatic@kbin.social 7 points 9 months ago

and who exactly would pass legislation holding themselves to account for crimes they have definitely committed?

[-] Wrench@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

Congress could pass the legislation, but they're just as corrupt

[-] andrew_bidlaw@sh.itjust.works 3 points 9 months ago

Like they say about religions: If higher wages is the only thing that keeps you from being bribed, you aren't a good judge to begin with.

There should be one of IRS's ninja vampire breathing in their back at all times.

[-] ArbiterXero@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

It’s not that simple. Better people can just know that they’re more valuable elsewhere and leave. Then the only people you have left are the dirt at the bottom of the bag that are willing to sell out.

[-] andrew_bidlaw@sh.itjust.works 2 points 9 months ago

And that's a competitive salary in that field. And I find that reasoning is a right way to define their and many other public servants' wage. My comment was against the idea of 'we pay extra to ensure they won't fall for bribes'.

[-] ArbiterXero@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

It should be better than the industry average by a fair margin due to the gravity, personal risk and other such things that come with the job.

[-] BigDanishGuy@sh.itjust.works 3 points 9 months ago

Just out of curiosity, because your mention of the concept is not the first I've read in this thread: what is the industry average for a private sector supreme court justice?

[-] ArbiterXero@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

Well the profession is “lawyer” regardless of judge or not.

In the private sector, the average for a well seasoned lawyer can get up to $200k, but for the top few it can easily hit 500k.

I would assume that “supreme court justices” you would want among the “best” so I’d target that.

[-] ArbiterXero@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

Yeah I get that. I suppose a clearer statement would be “pay extra so that we attract the quality of person that doesn’t accept bribes”

[-] Thief_of_Crows@lemmy.ml 2 points 9 months ago

I mean, why not both?

this post was submitted on 22 Feb 2024
642 points (96.0% liked)

politics

19120 readers
2067 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS